GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.versusRATI RAM & ANR.

                            [2023] 1 S.C.R. 925                          925


                GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.                             A
                                   v.
                          RATI RAM & ANR.
                     (Civil Appeal No. 399 of 2023)
                          JANUARY 20, 2023                               B
           [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
      Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – s.24(2) –
High Court relying upon Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs
                                                                         C
Harakchand Misrimal Solanki & Ors allowed the writ petition preferred
by the respondents/original writ petitioner and held that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of land in question deemed to
have lapsed u/s. 24(2) of 2013 Act – On appeal, held: The decision
in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki
& Ors has been specifically overruled by the Constitution Bench in       D
the case Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. –
Possession of the land in question was taken over by drawing the
possession receipt on the spot – Applying the law laid by Supreme
Court in Indore Development Authority to the facts of the case –Order
of the High Court set aside – Appeal allowed.
                                                                         E
        Indore Development Authority vs Manoharlal & Ors.
        (2020) 8 SCC 129 : [2020] 3 SCR 1 – followed.
        Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Harakchand
        Misrimal Solanki & Ors (2014) 3 SCC 183 : [2014] 1
        SCR 783 –referred to.                                            F
                         Case Law Reference
[2020] 3 SCR 1                    followed                 Para 2.2, 4
[2014] 1 SCR 783                  referred to              Para 2.2
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.399 of            G
2023.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.12145 of 2015.
        Ms. Sujeeta Srivastava, Adv. for the Appellants.
                                                                         H
                                  925
926             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A           Nitin Mishra, Ishaan Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
B     and order passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ
      Petition (C) No. 12145 of 2015 by which the High Court has allowed
      the said writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has
      declared that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1894”) with regard
      to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
C     the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
      Rehabilitatio and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as
      “Act, 2013”), the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. have preferred the
      present appeal.
            2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
D     respective parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and
      order passed by the High Court.
             2.1 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
      Court, it appears that before the High Court, the appellant and the original
      respondents challenged the locus of the original writ petitioner to
      challenge the acquisition proceedings. It was the specific case on behalf
E     of the department that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha. Before
      the High Court, it was also the specific case on behalf of the department
      / Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) that the possession of the land in
      question was taken over by preparing the possession proceedings on
      25.01.2000 and handed over to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA).
F     In paragraphs 4, 6 and 7, it was stated in the counter affidavit as under:-
                       “4. That the present writ petition is further liable to be
                dismissed as the petitioners have not placed on record any
                document showing therein their entitlement over the subject
                land as they are not the recorded owners in the revenue records
                thus the petitioners are not entitled to any relief before the
G               Hon’ble Court under the writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is
                claiming to be one of the successors of Late Sh. Harkesh who
                was having bhoomidari rights, however no Surviving
                Membership Certificate has been filed along with the writ
                petition. It is submitted that under the bhoomidari rights, the
                land remained under the ownership of Gaon Sabha as such in
H
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. RATI RAM AND ANR.                            927
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

          the present case as well, the recorded owner of the land is          A
          Gaon Sabha which has not been made as a necessary party in
          the present writ petition.
                                    XXXXXXXX
                 6. That it is submitted that for the purpose of planned
          development of Delhi, the answering respondent issued a              B
          Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
          on 23.6.1989 which was followed by Notification under Section
          6 of the said Act dated 20.06.1990 for planned development of
          Delhi for the acquisition of the lands falling in village Garhi
          Mendu. That an Award bearing No. 13/92-93 dated· 19.6.1992
          was also passed and the actual vacant physical possession of         C
          the subject land including other lands of the said notification
          was taken on the spot by preparing possession proceedings
          dated 25.1.2000 and handed over to the DDA on the spot. The
          petitioners have also admitted about the execution of the
          possessing proceedings by the Government as the petitioners          D
          have admitted that symbolic possession of the subject land was
          taken by the Government. Needless to say that the petitioners
          never challenged the acquisition proceedings and the possession
          report which became final and binding on the petitioners as the
          land vested with the Government absolutely without any
          encumbrances.                                                        E
                 7. That it is submitted that the petitioners were never
          entitled to claim any compensation as the recorded owner of
          the subject land was Gaon Sabha, as such, the assertion by the
          petitioners that no compensation has been paid to them finds
          no merits and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. The        F
          compensation was however not paid to the Gaon Sabha as
          well. “
       2.2 Thereafter, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Harakchand
Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 183, the High Court has
allowed the writ petition and has declared that the acquisition with respect   G
to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of
the Act, 2013. However, the earlier decision of this Court in the case of
Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. (supra) has been subsequently
overruled by the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors., (2020)                   H
928            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     8 SCC 129. In paragraphs 365 and 366, the Constitution Bench of this
      Court has observed and held as under:-
                      “365. Resultantly, the decision rendered in Pune
               Municipal Corpn. [Pune Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand
               Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183] is hereby overruled and
B              all other decisions in which Pune Municipal Corpn. [Pune
               Municipal Corpn. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, (2014) 3
               SCC 183] has been followed, are also overruled. The decision
               in Sree Balaji Nagar Residential Assn. [Sree Balaji Nagar
               Residential Assn. v. State of T.N., (2015) 3 SCC 353] cannot
               be said to be laying down good law, is overruled and other
C              decisions following the same are also overruled. In Indore
               Development Authority v. Shailendra [(2018) 3 SCC 412], the
               aspect with respect to the proviso to Section 24(2) and whether
               “or” has to be read as “nor” or as “and” was not placed for
               consideration. Therefore, that decision too cannot prevail, in
               the light of the discussion in the present judgment.
D
                     366. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer
               the questions as under:
                     366.1. Under the provisions of Section 24(1)(a) in case
               the award is not made as on 1-1-2014, the date of
               commencement of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of
E              proceedings. Compensation has to be determined under the
               provisions of the 2013 Act.
                      366.2. In case the award has been passed within the
               window period of five years excluding the period covered by
               an interim order of the court, then proceedings shall continue
F              as provided under Section 24(1)(b) of the 2013 Act under the
               1894 Act as if it has not been repealed.
                      366.3. The word “or” used in Section 24(2) between
               possession and compensation has to be read as “nor” or as
               “and”. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under
G              Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act takes place where due to inaction
               of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement
               of the said Act, the possession of land has not been taken nor
               compensation has been paid. In other words, in case possession
               has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is
               no lapse. Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession
H              has not been taken then there is no lapse.
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. v. RATI RAM AND ANR.                       929
                  [M. R. SHAH, J.]

             366.4. The expression “paid” in the main part of Section     A
      24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation
      in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the
      proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with
      respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries
      (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition
      under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to                B
      compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013
      Act. In case the obligation under Section 31 of the Land
      Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been fulfilled, interest under
      Section 34 of the said Act can be granted. Non-deposit of
      compensation (in court) does not result in the lapse of land
                                                                          C
      acquisition proceedings. In case of non-deposit with respect to
      the majority of holdings for five years or more, compensation
      under the 2013 Act has to be paid to the “landowners” as on
      the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of
      the 1894 Act.
              366.5. In case a person has been tendered the               D
      compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act,
      it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under
      Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non- deposit of
      compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by
      tendering the amount under Section 31(1). The landowners
                                                                          E
      who had refused to accept compensation or who sought
      reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that the
      acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
      2013 Act.
             366.6. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is
      to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section         F
      24(1)(b). The mode of taking possession under the 1894 Act
      and as contemplated under Section 24(2) is by drawing of
      inquest report/memorandum. Once award has been passed on
      taking possession under Section 16 of the 1894 Act, the land
      vests in State there is no divesting provided under Section 24(2)
                                                                          G
      of the 2013 Act, as once possession has been taken there is no
      lapse under Section 24(2).
            366.8. The provisions of Section 24(2) providing for a
      deemed lapse of proceedings are applicable in case authorities
      have failed due to their inaction to take possession and pay
                                                                          H
930              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                compensation for five years or more before the 2013 Act came
                 into force, in a proceeding for land acquisition pending with the
                 authority concerned as on 1-1-2014. The period of subsistence
                 of interim orders passed by court has to be excluded in the
                 computation of five years.

B                       366.9. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not give rise
                 to new cause of action to question the legality of concluded
                 proceedings of land acquisition. Section 24 applies to a
                 proceeding pending on the date of enforcement of the 2013
                 Act i.e. 1-1-2014. It does not revive stale and time-barred claims
                 and does not reopen concluded proceedings nor allow
C                landowners to question the legality of mode of taking possession
                 to reopen proceedings or mode of deposit of compensation in
                 the treasury instead of court to invalidate acquisition.”
             3. Even otherwise, without considering the title of the original writ
      petitioner in the land in question, when it was the specific case on behalf
D     of the department / LAC that the recorded owner was the Gaon Sabha
      and the fact that the possession of the land in question was taken over
      by drawing the possession receipt on the spot, the High Court has
      committed a very serious error in entertaining the writ petition at the
      instance of the original writ petitioner and to declare that the acquisition
      with respect to the land in question is deemed to have lapsed.
E           4. In any case, applying the law laid down by this Court in the
      Constitution Bench decision in the case of Indore Development
      Authority (supra) to the facts of the case on hand, the impugned
      judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable and the
      same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed
F     and set aside.
             Present appeal is accordingly allowed. The original writ petition
      preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein – original writ petitioner stands
      dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
      shall be no order as to costs.
G            Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

      Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeal allowed.
      (Assisted by : Abhishek Pratap Singh, LCRA)



H